On 4/14/2010 9:20 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > This was more a discussion of scope than validity. > > Of course, having public discourse in a community of experts that > disparrages the validity of a claim could bolster invalidation > arguments. Or create a liability for the IETF and the parties involved. > So I can see how this might be a disfavored act in the IEEE > community, which seems to be slanted towards rights holders (I speak as > a long-term member of IEEE and as a consultant on IPR). Perhaps we'd all > be better off if the IEEE were a little more critical of misguided > claims? Regular raising of a hue and cry of "Bullshit!" would go a long > way towards reducing the damage caused by unmerited patents. Dean - I think the problem is that the individuals in the IETF who represent their sponsors are generally not licensed patent agents or attorneys (although there are a couple of exceptions to this last one) and so its really hard for someone who has no experience in the patent process to make any reliable commentary. The unfortunate occurance in the IETF is that people make specific claims about what they professionally believe is and is not patentable but the reality is that no matter what they say they are not the patent agency or its examiners so the act of making these declarations as fact is literally practicing law without a license IMHO. Especially when these individuals make flat claims about the validity of a patent's status or filing. Individuals may have a personal opinion but I am betting that the legal opinion of the Sponsor as to some other party's patent filing is not something that the Sponsor's are willing to grant to their un-skilled and non-legally trained technology players here in the IETF. Todd Glassey > > -- > Dean Willis > > ------- Original message ------- >> From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) <steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: ietf-ipr@xxxxxxxx, pwe3@xxxxxxxx, adrian.farrel@xxxxxxxxxx, >> IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrew.g.malis@xxxxxxxxxxx, stbryant@xxxxxxxxx >> Sent: 14.4.'10, 8:47 >> >> Hi all, >> In IEEE we are admonished to never discuss the essentiality or >> validity of patent claims. I cannot believe this is considered an >> appropriate discussion in IETF. >> Regards, >> Steve >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pwe3-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:pwe3-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf >> Of Yaakov Stein >> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:44 AM >> To: mmorrow@xxxxxxxxx; lmartini@xxxxxxxxx; tom.nadeau@xxxxxx; >> Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); david.i.allan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Busschbach, >> Peter B (Peter) >> Cc: IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Secretariat; pwe3@xxxxxxxx; >> adrian.farrel@xxxxxxxxxx; andrew.g.malis@xxxxxxxxxxx; stbryant@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's >> Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12 >> >> >> This disclosure (1311) quotes application US20080089227A1: Protecting >> multi-segment pseudowires which may impact draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy, >> and perhaps ICCP, MS-PW architecture, and MS-PW setup. >> There is no apparent connection with oam-msg-map - in fact the claims >> stress that the triggers are failures of PSN elements (e.g. S-PEs) and >> are NOT from the ACs, making any connection untenable. >> >> A previous disclosure by the same company (863) refers to >> 20080285466 : Interworking between MPLS/IP and Ethernet OAM >> mechanisms which may impact mpls-eth-oam-iwk, but not oam-msg-map, >> unless one interprets the first claim and its dependents much more >> broadly than supported by the background and description. >> >> Can someone from the company claiming this IPR fix the information in >> these disclosures ? >> At very least that company is required to disclose IPR is holds with >> respect to the appropriate drafts (unless it is willing to risk >> forfeiting its rights with respect to these ...). >> >> However, with respect to oam-msg-map I would like to request that it >> consider removing inappropriate disclosures. >> Of course, if after consideration it believes that these disclosures >> ARE appropriate, I would love to hear the reasoning. >> >> Y(J)S >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:ietf-ipr@xxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 18:46 >> To: mmorrow@xxxxxxxxx; Yaakov Stein; lmartini@xxxxxxxxx; >> tom.nadeau@xxxxxx; Mustapha.aissaoui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> david.i.allan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; busschbach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: stbryant@xxxxxxxxx; adrian.farrel@xxxxxxxxxx; pwe3@xxxxxxxx; >> andrew.g.malis@xxxxxxxxxxx; matthew.bocci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> ipr-announce@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR >> relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12 >> >> Dear Monique Morrow, Yaakov Stein, Luca Martini, Thomas Nadeau, >> Mustapha Aissaoui, David Allan, Peter Busschbach: >> >> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled >> "Pseudowire (PW) OAM Message Mapping" (draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map) >> was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2010-04-07 and has been >> posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1311/). The title of the IPR >> disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to >> draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12." >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
begin:vcard fn:Todd Glassey n:Glassey;Todd email;internet:TGlassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf